Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I’m hectically collecting myself for a last minute trip to Las Vegas for a chance to sit down with some of the folks behind THE HANGOVER. It’s a quick in and out trip, but I wanted to get this review of Terry Gilliam’s THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS finished before I am corrupted by Sin City.
I think hopeful is the best term to describe my state of being going into this film. I love Gilliam. Who my age doesn’t? TIME BANDITS, MUNCHAUSEN and his Python work as a kid and then BRAZIL coming in as my tastes in film matured as a young teen and FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS hitting just as I was undergoing my transition from teen to man.
I had faith that Gilliam’s interesting misfire THE BROTHERS GRIMM wasn’t indicative of his current abilities as a filmmaker, but rather of the constraints put upon him by the Weinstein overlords, but the dude is cursed. I don’t know what graveyard he trespassed in, what greek god he offended, how many cracks he has stepped on, what voodoo priest he stiffed, but something happened.
LOST IN LA MANCHA chronicles the death of one film and then his main star dies in the middle of filming his next.
We all know of Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell and Jude Law stepping in to fill out Heath Ledger’s work as Tony, the shady main character and I knew they would be great and respectful of Ledger’s mostly finished performance, but I didn’t know how much of a stretch Gilliam was having to make to cover up Ledger’s premature departure. I had nightmare visions of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE.
In short, I wasn’t concerned about Gilliam’s skills as a filmmaker, but more about how hard fate screwed him again.
The greatest compliment I can give the movie is that if I had been told the final product was exactly what Terry Gilliam had intended from the beginning I’d believe it. Heath is in the movie for the great majority of his character’s screen-time. This time fate only threw down a gauntlet and challenged Terry to overcome a huge set-back, not Nancy Kerriganed him.
The only stuff they didn’t shoot with Ledger were the three different times he steps into the mirror of Doctor Parnassus, a magical portal that is part of a traveling vaudeville-esque stage show.

Parnassus himself is played by Christopher Plummer who is just awesome in the movie. Parnassus is essentially God with a gambling problem. He can’t keep from making bets with Mr. Nick, Tom Waits’ devil in a bowler hat and that leads to the dilemma of the movie.
Parnassus champions the power of imagination. Much like Stephen King’s beams in his Dark Tower books, storytelling is what keeps Gilliam’s world continuing, it’s the light that keeps the darkness at bay. Their battle is always over humanity’s innate goodness or corruption.
Over the centuries Parnassus has defeated Mr. Nick in this game, has used his Imaginarium to show people the most wondrous aspects of their own thoughts and dreams, but as we get to the modern day theatricality has run its course. It’s nearly impossible to compete with Mr. Nick now and this time Parnassus’ own daughter is on the line.
Parnassus had won her mother, the love of his life, but being cursed with immortality all that is good eventually leaves him and all he has left of his true love is their daughter, Valentina (played by the pixie-ish Lily Cole).

When Heath Ledger’s Tony enters the story it’s quite shocking, actually. You think there was a moment of awkwardness in THE DARK KNIGHT when The Joker is brought to Michael Jai White in a body bag, then wait until you see him hanging from his neck, clearly dead.
Or so you think. There’s something tricky about Tony, the hanging man. He is resuscitated and quickly becomes a part of the traveling band, helping Parnassus cover the distance in his competition with Mr. Nick out of sheer charm.
Listen, nothing Heath Ledger does in this movie tops the iconographic turn as The Joker. I’m willing to bet people will think that was his last movie forever. It’s a huge performance in an incredibly great popcorn tentpole picture. But what Parnassus has is the heart. There’s something tragically poetic about this being Ledger’s final performance.
The mere fact that it brought together Farrell, Depp and Law to pay tribute (and donate their salaries to Ledger’s family) by itself resonates on the screen, but that’s not all. Upon Tony’s crossing over into the fantasy land with a paying customer we see him as she does… as the ultimate charming dreamboat, Johnny Depp.
Depp has a speech that keeps her from the temptation of comfort and easiness enacted by Mr. Nick to draw her soul away from Parnassus, a beautiful speech that I would bet money was written for Heath, invoking the likes of Princess Diana and James Dean… I choked up. At this moment that scene transcends the screen. It’s an incredibly important moment for the characters and the plot, but more than that it comments about something that is on every audience member’s mind and will be for decades to come.
It’s such a beautiful moment that if the rest of the movie had been crap I’d still have something to hold on to.
But luckily the movie isn’t. It’s Terry Gilliam at his purist. He didn’t have the Weinsteins looming over him this time out, but he also had the means to fully indulge his fantastic imagination the likes of which we haven’t seen since MUNCHAUSEN, but to a great effect in BRAZIL.
That’s high praise, I know, but I won’t say the movie is flawless. There’s a giant slowdown in the middle of the movie that I think might shake a few viewers loose. This stumbling block isn’t bad, it’s just that there was a slow build to the world behind the two reflective mylar strips that act as Parnassus’ mirror and we finally get a glimpse at the incredible fantasy side of the film, just enough to get comfortable (or spoiled, if you will) and then we’re pulled back into the real world for an extended stretch.
And I’m not kidding about this imaginationland. We see many different versions, each inspired by the mind who enters. It is both terrifying and awe-inspiring, which I think is probably a true and honest reflection of most of our true psyches. There’s a kid, nose in a hand-held video game, that stumbles in and his world is filled with giant Christopher Plummer head hot-air balloons and a landscape that looks like how I imagine crackheads see Candyland as they play the boardgame with their crackbabies.
Each time we’re behind the mirror we get Gilliam off his leash, nothing but his sheer creativity displayed for us to take in. It’s humbling, actually. There’s a scene that isn’t a mirror scene, but a flashback showing the first meeting of Mr. Nick and Parnassus that has the same feel and gave me shivers. The detail of this world is remarkable and remarkably executed.
Then you have everybody in the cast firing on all cylinders. Ledger, of course, even if his role is tainted by a sadness that he had no concept of as he constructed the character.

The other Tonys, Depp, Farrell and Law all pay apt tribute to Ledger in one form or another. Lily Cole is oddly beautiful with eyes you could fall into if you’re not careful. Plummer is the MVP of the film as far as I’m concerned. He’s quietly confident and brings all his years with him to show us an exhausted being who is driven to forever tell stories for the benefit of all humankind.
Verne Troyer is playing himself, as usual, but there’s an emotional resonance to his character here that is missing in everything else I’ve seen him in. Tom Waits as Mr. Nick is inspired casting. Harry mentioned that he stands up there with Walter Huston’s Mr. Scratch in The Devil and Daniel Webster and I agree wholeheartedly. Waits cuts his devil from the same giddy charmer cloth.
I fear one person who will be overlooked in this film is young Andrew Garfield (BOY A, LIONS FOR LAMBS) as Anton, the only person in the troupe who doubts Tony’s character. He’s a fairly average, normal character (well, as normal as someone who paints his face silver and dresses up like Mercury every night can be), but his character should have been the one audiences hate. He’s in love with Valentina and when Ledger joins the group she makes eyes for him.
The role of the jilted suitor isn’t exactly the audience favorite (except for Duckie and even though he still got Kristy Swanson I say he still got royally screwed), but Garfield gives Anton a real, humanly flawed and layered character, but it’s subtle. With so many great personalities running wild and Gilliam’s imagination being shot out of a cannon directly into our eyeballs at 24 frames a second I hope Garfield’s strong work here doesn’t get lost.
THE IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS is pure, unadulterated, unhomogenized, unrestricted Terry Gilliam. You see the best of all of his past work, including a scene (involving cops) that could have pranced right out of Python sketch. A return to form? Yeah, I think you could say that. It’s certainly a welcome return to fantasy, especially when we’re given such a flawed character as Tony to be our lead.
I can see why Ledger was attracted to this role. Without giving anything away, you’ll think you know exactly where they’re going with him and his character about a quarter of the way through the movie and I’m telling you right now… You’re dead wrong. Let’s just say this character would not exist in a studio film.
I imagine we’ll be seeing a lot of word about the movie out of Cannes. I’m sure you’ll see those passionately against the film and those passionately for it, like all of his best work. Love it or hate it, this is pure Terry Gilliam.

Alright, time to catch some sleep before my 30-ish hours in Las Vegas. Be back with a few really cool interviews very soon.
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Don't want to have this one spoiled. I am really excited for all this Cannes stuff - Parnassus obviously, but also the new movies by Jan Kounen and Gaspar Noé. Ang Lees Woodstock thing could be interesting as well...

Yes, it's the guy who wanted to make Dune in the 70s. Jodorowsky made "The Holy Mountain". Pretty much one of the best movies ever. He also wrote a lot of comic scenarios, most famously the Incal books drawn by Moebius.

dude, saw you having serious fights in the trek talkback. Geez that talkback was getting ugly. Just too much man...Some serious flame wars lol..Thought some people's heads were going to explode they were ranting so much...

Well spotted, AsimovLives, Jodoroswki came into my head immediately when I saw the first picture of Christopher Plummer. El topo and the Holy Mountain are friggin amazing films, and Alejandro, like you say, is a really funny, entertaining guy.

Terry Gilliam's films seem to be an aquired taste. I, for one, have liked several of them, but then there are those that I found to be not as good as I expected. I'm not in any way dissing Terry GIlliam or his talents. Because I ALWAYS go to see his films. It's just that some of them would be better appreciatedd undetr the influence of hallucinogenics.

Bravo, Terry! I just watched one of my "Monty Python's Flying Circus" DVDs the other day, and couldn't help but laugh my ass off. Gilliam's animations are as quirky and insane and dreamlike as they come. Wonderful stuff.<p>
I'm really looking forward to "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus." It seems like a return to what made Gilliam great. Can't wait!

He's come a long way since John Cleese exploded at him during the filming (he was the co-director) of Holy Grail. Brazil's definitely my favorite, and I have a soft spot for Munchhausen. Finally, everyone should see La Jetee before rewatching 12 Monkeys, although it will be kind of a spoiler if you haven't seen it before, which if you haven't shame on you.

If this movie is as creative as you say, then it's guaranteed to fail. Quint, Gilliam isn't cursed by any abstract concept like fate. He is an artist with a clear vision of what he is doing - and therefore he runs into the throng, the mass, the horde, the mob, the general public - who has such an unclear vision they can't figure out which cat food to buy without staring at the cans for a minute or two to try to tax their brains by figuring out of "Chunky Kitty Stew" is more appopriate than "Seafood Medley" for the tabby who doesn't really care one way or another. Once you figure that out, you see why Gilliam has trouble.

I have an Arrakean sandworm boner for this movie so goddamn big right now Paul Atreides is on top of it riding it screaming "I am the Kwizatz Haderach" and behind him is a congo line of happy film geeks stretching 400 miles long and it's so goddamn joyous the idea of this movie that the sandworm has caused rain to fall on the barren planet.

He did a concert in my home town not to long ago. Alot of stories going around about him being a real prick behind the scenes. I wonder if thats true. I know he refuses to give interviews, instead he interviews himself and sends it to what ever media outlet requests one. Kind of weird.

I've never been a Gilliam fan, but that's probably just because I haven't watched more than one of his movies (Fisher King). I do read how you guys perceive him, the reviews of his films, or at least the more "creative" ones, and it brings a question to mind. If most of you got what I suspect you want - a world that wasn't quite so anal, repressed or conservative as it's often made out to be here - what would you do then? Would any of this stuff mean anything if, all of the sudden, it was popular with more people and wasn't so rare? 'Ever consider that the things that make you mad in the world also make this stuff so valuable, particularly to you? It's staggering to think how many people make their entire livings commenting on the bad things of the world, the so-called injustices, etc. Supposedly, the ideal is a world in which everyone works not for money but to better themselves, right? Well, if that's the goal, and it's reached, then how does one better themselves from then on? Where is the value in knowledge if everyone has it and there is no competition? In the version of a just world or universe that I suspect is desired on boards like this, you could literally know EVERYTHING and still have as little or as much as the person that knows nothing, and you'd probably be twice as miserable and parnoid. After all, people lie to one another to save each other's feelings - that's intentionally withholding knowledge from someone for their sake, often on the part of people that bemoan the lack or inaccessibility of other forms of knowledge in the world today. If you don't have greed, bigotry, repression, censorship or any of those things to overcome anymore, what then? I think maybe that's why I'm not drawn to these things - the sort of idealism it promotes is ultimately self-defeating. We have our own ideas of what a perfect world should be, albeit different ones, because we know there's no such thing. In our minds, we can compare and contrast. There's what we want versus what we get. Those ideas and desires drive creativity and discussion - they keep us occupied a great deal and, for some that make their livings trying to promote some form of social or economic justice, the fact that such an ideal is currently, seemingly unattainable is actually quite profitable. You can try to make it seem like I'm against the efforts, which I'm not, but you can't say it's not profitable considering how wealthy people, those propagating the more so-called liberal ideals like, say, Jesse Jackson and the Kennedys are, or people like Limbaugh propagating the conservative ideals. As long as there's something to work towards, these guys have a job, an audience, etc. I, personally, have no illusions - the world will never be exactly how I THINK I want it to be, but then again, I hope it never is because the challenges and even the small, momentary successes give my life meaning and make everything worthwhile. Just out of curiosity, could one of you address this without childish vulgarity and derrogatory namecalling - maybe in halfway proper sentence structure with correct spelling? This movie is all about imagination, right? Is there an imaginative AND civilized response to this somewhere on this board?

has he made something truly great, compared to the likes of Kubrik, Hitchcock, Bergman et cetera. He's also made stuff that's seriously crappy, like the Brothers Grimm. I hope this Parnassus' thing with Heath is better, dare i hope, even great. Call me a posseur or whatever, but i really think Jodorowski makes horribly overrated movies, just weird for the sake of weird. His movies are not for everyone that's for sure. It's for people love to interpret and look for deeper meaning in the symbolisms. I'm a simple man, I prefer two sheets of paper with the deep meaning written on them instead. Much easier than wasting my time decyphering. Alas, some people take pleasure in decyphering, and well... It's good that people like that exist, specially for Alejandro, so he can ear money and feed his family. By now, I'm sure you know I'm one of those ungodly creatures that enjoyed Michael Bay's Transformers, so... Also... Jodorowski's Dune would have sucked! I mean, didn't the guy want to cast Dali as the Emperor ffs?! Hey, Alejandro, how about casting someone who, you know, can act? Ridley Scott in his prime, now there's a guy who would have done Dune justice. And ok, so Incal is good, mainly thanks to Giraud's impeccable style, but Metabarons... utter crap. JORSON28: Bettering yourself is an attainable goal, but you can always improve. Once you attain some knowledge you immediately find out there is so much more to know. In my opinion, there will always be a better microscope that will let us see smaller stuff, then a better one to let us see even smaller stuff... ad infinitum. So, complete knowledge can never be reached. And in reference to satisfaction, when someone who lacks the knowledge comes to you for advice, the feeling of satisfaction that being useful gives you is something to be experienced: it's pure bliss that ignorance can't even begin to touch. My 2c (sorry for my atrocious English btw)

12 Monkeys is as good as sci-fi film making gets. And The Fisher King has so many amazing moments. But particularly 12 Monkeys is a flawless work of genius. Coming from something starring Bruce Willis, Madeline Stowe and Brad Pitt, that's saying something.

FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS?? I mean I love Terry but I fucking hate that movie. Like I saw it in middle school it bored me and I feel asleep. Have watched it sense but that was after every stoner I've ever meet had to tell me that it was the best movie ever and no that they had never heard of the movie Brazil/Time Bandits/Baron Munch......which are all better films then Fear.

Agree with your assessment of the general public vs. Gilliam, but you don't know cats -- I'm a crazy cat person. They are picky as all fuck, like genre fans. Though it's true that zombie minded people do ponder in the cat food aisle, because they don't know cats, either.

Love T.G. Have yet to see Tideland. And I think Fisher King is a little overrated (I know. But I don't like Robin "The Annoying Genie and Patch Adams and Bicentennial Man suck ass." Williams too much. And I honestly thought The Brothers Grimm was fun but a missed opportunity given the talent involved. (I guess if you're not RR or QT, you got problems with the WSteins from the get go.) But this movie really does look like it's the shit (in a good way). I whole-heartedly look forward to finally getting to see this film. Plus LaMancha. Why do studios have a problem with giving the guy $, when they spend millions and millions on crappy movies by Richie Cunningham? Oh, well...

Some meaning may seem to have been lost when something becomes popular. A little-known movie, or themes or a style common to a particular genre of movies, previously only in common between you and a small number of people, is now shared by all sorts of people, of varying degrees of intelligence and taste, with enthusiasm similar to yours. Any hostility is exclusive and ridiculous, but most people are that way until they (hopefully) come to their senses and are glad that their circle has broadened.<p>
Terry Gilliam is a gifted and captivating filmmaker; however, his relative obscurity, at least where box offices are concerned, is largely due to the odd nature of his films, their uniqueness, and the vivid imagination reflected, which are all rarities and not the products of some outside force making him its victim. He could easily, if he wanted, make more marketable movies: he simply doesn't want to. Such characteristics, if they're exhibited by a sincere individual, generally don't make much money anyway, and while a person can rail against the situation, it's certainly not a new one.<p>
If you're saying you don't care for movies that reflect idealism, because life is never ideal, then I suppose I don't know what else besides documentaries--and then only the ones that don't address the more buoyant aspects of the human spirit--you can ever watch. You can make fiction as realistic as you like, its characters as caustic and petty and banal as people can be at times, and anything magical as absent and foolish as some people believe, but at some point you might as well just research exhaustively something unfortunate or horrifying in reality and think really hard about it for ninety minutes. Imaginative work, even if it hardly makes any money, in the derivative, imitative year of Star Trek XI, Terminator 4, Angels & Demons, and Transformers 2, is welcome, as far as I'm concerned.

Heath will always be remembered as the guy that was the top to the more afeminate Gyllenhaal. I've already forget TDK but I wish I could quit Brokeback Mountain. Actual Brokeback was just fucking long and boring as shit, as is all of Ang Lee's movies. I'm sorry that guy is overrated as fuck as well.

Some old director will make a movie or write a book/script about working with the Weinsteins and what there fucking deal is. Why a director like TG gets fucked over but QT and Kevin Smith get full creative control? I bet it all comes down to sucking up, I like Kevin and QT but they seem like spineless a hole when it comes to sucking up, which is fine because they get to do what they want. I bet the Weinsteins make directors jump through hoops and TG doesn't seem like a guy who wants to deal with that crap. Anyone see TG on that episode of Trigger Happy TV?

Web site and you wouldn't even have any idea that Outlander AND Fanboys comes out on DVD this Tuesday? You'd have more a clue if you came here (though for some reason AICN gave up on Outlander?????). Go check out the Weinsteins site and all they are doing is fucking pimping QT's new awful looking Nazi movie? I mean that guy just made them loose a shit load of money with his last flick? Does QT have some pictures of the Weinsteins in some sort of compromising position?

The Weinsteins are making this? By the Haute Tension guy. Its further along then I thought. Here is the cast: <P> Elisabeth Shue, Richard Dreyfuss, Jessica Szohr, Dina Meyer, Ving Rhames, Adam Scott, Jerry O'Connell <P> Thats a pretty decent cast for a B-movie remake.

Farrah Fawcett having cancer? WHOOPIE. Yeah it sucks and all, but ummmmmmmmm lots of fucking people get cancer (including famous people) what makes her so special. Why didn't she just make a deal with NBC to make the last year of her life a reality show, and at the end of every episode you don't know if she dies or not. And her family and friends can then go on talk shows and have the host try to get them to slip which episode she is going to die in. It will all be a lot more fun, like we can have Farrah doing crazy things like swimming with Whales, going to Disney Lang, meeting a B-list actor, going sky diving, having a sports star dedicate a point to her, getting a star named after her, appearing as a guest judges in some crappy reality show, going to church, talking about how bad hospital food is, yelling at her assistants, kill a small child. You know the whole Make a Wish Foundation List.

but i ve been busy lately. Anyway....im good dude, thanks for asking. Yes I have seen the new trek. Unlike my good friend Asimov (btw thanks for all the info on jaradowsky asimov..you have convinced me to check his stuff) i did nt despise it. Let me just state up front that without question the script was really dumb (but then what else were we expecting from the brain trust of orci and kurtzman lol) But for me it was quite fun. I thought the effects were very good, the cast were excellent for the most part (except Pegg, who i thought was very miscast, and not funny imho). I liked the depiction of the ship's engineering sections, the no sound in space moment...basically i thought it re-invented trek fairly well. Simply put it entertained me, but it is also a flawed movie with some real weaknesses. However it had enough moments that were pure trek, and as someone that grew up on trek, it just tickled my geek senses....

interiors of the Kelvin in the begining. I have to actually agree with you about the engine room being comletely inconsistent with the rest of the design. Well, fair enough Asimov it clearly did not work for you on any level, i can respect that even if it was nt the same for me...

There's a short film on YouTube/Google Video by Blomkamp (director of District 9) called "Alive in Joburg". It's the same premise with a fraction of the production costs, and it still holds up pretty well. The short received some attention on AICN a while back, when Blomkamp was announced to direct Halo.

year ultimatly. District 9 does look really interesting, and its actually about somehting. Agree with you about the Road, that looks very interesting indeed. But lets not also forget the big one at the end of the year dude..Avatar. Imho I think that will be big budget sci-fi on an epic scale that will act as a counter balance to stuff Transformers, trek et al...

do you like? My personal favourites are the undiscovered country, love the whodunnit murder mystery, and imho its a good analogy of the collapse of the Soviet empire and the resulting change in the world order. Imho one of the things good sci-fi does..make comments on whats happening in the here and now. Also WOK, Montblans performance, the great cat and mouse between Khan and Kirk...just good ol fashioned good writing and dialouge. Oh..also like the director's cut of TMP, far superior to the theatrical cut imho..

thats one of the problems I have with Gilliens movies ,his sense of pacing is just so off.Even his most enjoyable films , have massive lulls that seem to drag for ages.The guy has made some classics though, Brazil , Time Bandits 12 monkeys.It's hard to judge if his movie making style or fucking awful bad luck ..wreck most of his projects.He comes across as a dangerous melding of Tim Burtons style, with Wernor Herzogs directorial approach..!

Plummer was in the title role I knew I had to see it. I tried reading his autobiography, but only ended up skimming it. I need to tackle that again, but it's got some good stuff. He's in his what 80s now, so it will suck when he goes. I liked 12 Monkeys. I saw a little of Brazil, and turned it off. Time Bandits kind of the same, but this looks like a great premise with the ususal eccentric visual treatment.

assessment of the trek movies. Though im sorry dude, but the theatrical cut of TMP is not a good movie. The pace is glacial, and the long shots of people reacting and basically making googly eyes gets ridiculous after a while imho. Also, the characters dont act like the characters in the show, they are really stiff and lifeless too....but thats just me dude.

you realize that Stander wasnt all that South African? The director was Canadian, the main actor was American, his wife was played by a Canadian, and the crew was only about half South African. As much as I would love for SA to be able to take all credit for it, im afraid its argumentative wether it is in fact a South African film. But im right there with you about the things district 9 is saying, and the way sci-fi comments on real world events...

What a waste of my time. I loved Time Bandits, Munchausen, and 12 Monkeys, but my god, what a turd Brazil was. All this "brilliant filmmaking" talk for Brazil sounds a bit pompous and yes, pretentious. It had a unique style, yes. but. that's. about. it.

and i agree with them, i just think all those elements you mention (subtle acting, deliberate pace etc..) work much better in the director's cut. Just tightens the pace where it needs to be, and adds lots of great little scenes imho...

shell...sheer brilliance. Watched it 2 nights ago with my girlfriend. An absolute masterpiece. All the anime you mentioned is good (i would say you have good taste in anime Asimov) but you might want to check out Patlabor, and especially neon genesis evangelion. Do yourself a favour my friend...

Bloated over-done productions, mish-mash of styles/themes/over-reach of director vs. what winds up being produced. Really enjoyed Time Bandits and etc. but I agree w/ MrGeyser-this guys track record ISN'T that great-and this will piss many of you off-he's the reason why guys like BRETT RATNER continue to get opps because the Suits KNOW-they're gonna get a hit and he'll deliver(more or less) what they're paying for. W/ Gilliam-you just Never know. And that's a shame.

....ANOTHER OVERBLOWN WIND FILLED TRAINWRECK INCOMPRHENSIBLE MESS THAT IS A GILLIAM FILM.
<P>
IT'S THE SAME OLD TIRED M.O. : DOUCHEBAG AICN REVIEWERS GET THEIR PANTIES ALL IN A BUNCH ABOUT A NEW GILLIAM FILM, TAKE A 5SEC LOOK AT A CUMSTAINED GRAINY FUCKING WORKPRINT, THEN DECLARE THAT GILLIAM IS 'BACK'.
<P>
OMFG. KILL ME NOW.
<P>
LATER ON, WHEN THE REAL THING IS FINALLY RELEASED, IT'S GIVEN THE USUAL MASTURBATORY 'NEAR MISS' LABEL AND 'BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME'.
<P>
WE'LL PROBABLY ALSO HAVE TO SUFFER THROUGH THE ENDLESS 'I HATED 6 MONKEYS' POSTS ALSO.

May be my favorite Gilliam film. So glad to see him return to fantasy as well. It was fantastic, and knowing what happened with Heath, the 'sit in' scenes were seemless and felt completely appropriate.